New "Ancient Empires" PBEM created

[SlowThinker]

PROBLEM

Babylon has units teleported in the Minoan save.

Zedd announced a problem with the Min-Bab alliance last turn (the Babylonian AI was trying to end it), so I suggested Minoans end the alliance by a CivDip barter.
It looks he did it by Civ2 means, and so units were teleported.
So I ask a Minoan (and a Hittite) replay.

[Zedd]

Babylon did make contact but I thought I was able to break it off with no ill after effects.

I can replay and post a new save.

[Kull]

Originally posted by SlowThinker
I can imagine some players (like Straybow) think loans of wonders are not allowed, because in past we said it was bad, although the rules don't forbid it.
So let us make this point clear. Talk please: how do you understand the current status, is it allowed now? And what rule do you prefer?

I oppose most practices which twist the mod to the point it bears no relationship to anything even remotely historic. By that "rule", swapping wonders back and forth is flat out wrong. On the other hand, deliberately giving a city to an ally or partner (via bribe or conquest) for trading or military purposes at least has *some* parallel in history, although trading it back and forth over a short-to-medium time frame is clearly "gaming the system".

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by Kull
I oppose most practices which twist the mod to the point it bears no relationship to anything even remotely historic. By that "rule", swapping wonders back and forth is flat out wrong. On the other hand, deliberately giving a city to an ally or partner (via bribe or conquest) for trading or military purposes at least has *some* parallel in history, although trading it back and forth over a short-to-medium time frame is clearly "gaming the system".

Rephasing: You say that trading cities (incl. wonder cities) should be allowed, but the city should not return in short-to-medium time.
I consider this view quite reasonable, but I will say some points:

Rules should be unambiguous, so "short-to-medium time" should be cleared (10,20,40 ...turns).

I think giving cities should not be allowed via conquest. It should not be free and a gold+envoy penalty is reasonable (otherwise cities could migrate to civs with wonders/wltpd/etc. - for example Babylon could ask Hittites - "please grow these cities to size 12 and then return them"). Also so far an agreed conquest was dissalowed, and better not to change rules unless there is really a good reason.

BTW in far past you opposed a possibility a player leaves and passes all his civilization (or a substantial part) to a friend/ally. The penalty gold+envoy penalty should make it harder, maybe it needs a special rule (like "a civ can give away only one city per turn")?

[Zedd]

Babylon Units keep insisting on WAR! Thier emmisary was narrowly avoided to preserve peace and thus we finnaly have the save.

FYI Egypt also sent an emmissary but he was refused.

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by Zedd in an e-mail
I finnaly was able to finnish the turn but I may have missed moving some units becouse I had to click arround to keep the horse from poping up and contacting babylon

Zedd, war is not a problem! It doesn't teleport units nor does any other harm.
Don't be afraid to finish your turn and to move all your units.

[Straybow]

Yes, only end of alliance teleports units. But unless those few units make a huge difference (very doubtful) let's just play from this save. We're delayed long enough.

[Straybow]

I can see border cities being ceded to another civ, but giving a city deep inside your territory doesn't seem "right."

If you want to help your ally, give a Farmer and he can build a city. For example, if Persia wanted to give somebody a port on the Caspian, or Bab wanted to give somebody a port on the Gulf.

There are plenty of historical examples of empires taking in refugees or inviting allies to establish trading cities.

[SlowThinker]

"Giving" - do you mean a bribery or a capture?
The term "border city" is somewhat vague, so we should accept this rule wopuld be somewhat loose.

[Straybow]

Yes, writing rules often devolves into successive rounds of legalism and loophole-seeking.

[Zedd]

Play on

[Kull]

Originally posted by Straybow
I can see border cities being ceded to another civ, but giving a city deep inside your territory doesn't seem "right."

Agreed.

If you want to help your ally, give a Farmer and he can build a city. For example, if Persia wanted to give somebody a port on the Caspian, or Bab wanted to give somebody a port on the Gulf.

Yes.

Originally posted by Straybow
Yes, writing rules often devolves into successive rounds of legalism and loophole-seeking.

Amen.

[atawa]

Who's turn is it?

[Straybow]

Mine

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by Straybow
Yes, writing rules often devolves into successive rounds of legalism and loophole-seeking.

We could save a part of trouble if we preferred the rules as simple as possible.

I can see border cities being ceded to another civ, but giving a city deep inside your territory doesn't seem "right."

I think the main reason for the rules should be the gameplay and not a simulation of the history: IMO the rule "don't hand over central cities" is not absolutely necessary (especially such a hand-over costs 1 envoy + gold and the city cannot be returned next 10/20/40 turns, so it will be rare). It may be a bit unusual but it doesn't harm the gameplay.

Just my view.